Print

Perez To Fight Charges

Lawyer Argues State's Actions Damaged Mayor's Right To A Fair Trial

JEFFREY B. COHEN

September 04, 2009

HARTFORD — - Mayor Eddie A. Perez is expected to appear in Superior Court this morning to try to persuade a judge to drop the charges against him and to hold Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane in contempt of court.

Hubert Santos, Perez's attorney, filed the motion this week with Judge Julia Dewey, arguing that "the state has intentionally defeated the defendant's right to a jury trial."

Jury selection was to begin Sept. 9 for Perez's trial on bribery and other charges stemming from his January arrest. That arrest was related to allegations of discounted work done on Perez's home by city contractor Carlos Costa. Perez, a Democrat, has pleaded not guilty.

But in his motion, Santos argues that Perez's arrest Wednesday on attempted extortion charges would make it impossible for him to have a fair trial "because of the prejudicial publicity generated by the arrest." He also argues that by arresting Perez and releasing arrest warrants, Kane violated an order of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Today's hearing is scheduled for 9:30.

Meanwhile, additional search warrants filed in Superior Court in Hartford raise questions about whether Abraham Giles consistently paid state and federal taxes for both himself and his businesses.

Giles, a former Democratic state representative, also was arrested Wednesday on two extortion-related charges — but those allegations have nothing to do with the tax issue.

In the summer of 2007, state investigators obtained two search warrants to gain access to Giles' personal and business tax records from the office of his accountant, Adrian L. Bludeau.

In one of the warrants, investigators pursued the records based, in part, on a statement by Bludeau that Giles' business, G&G Enterprises Inc., "had not filed an income tax return during the period 2001-2006."

It was unclear from the warrant application whether Bludeau was referring to state or federal income tax, although elsewhere in the affidavit is a reference to state income tax returns reviewed for some of those years.

The same warrant quotes one of the investigators' fraud examiners as saying "a preliminary review" showed that Bludeau did not report cash income generated by Giles' businesses.

John Kelly, Giles' attorney, said he did not represent Giles at the time and could not comment on the search warrant. Bludeau could not be reached for comment at his business or home.

It's unclear what records investigators seized, if any. No charges appear to have been filed related to the income tax issue.